From: David Abrahams (dave_at_[hidden])
Date: 2005-08-29 19:43:48
Ion Gaztañaga <igaztanaga_at_[hidden]> writes:
>> What do you expect of library vendors that want to sell their
>> implementation? There were fears that certain C++ features would make it
>> less useful for embedded developers (be it memory bloat or what else) so they
>> came up with EC++, which helped them sell to the embedded world.
>> It was always funny to see pjp and the dinkum folks defending EC++ on
>> comp.languages.c++ :)
> I didn't know that EC++ was created without C++ comittee consensus, but
> I think achieving a well-defined subset of C++ is good for C++.
> This involves analizing performance aspects of C++ and can push C++
> This happens in C and other languages.
> Obviously you can argue that this is only to sell libraries, but as
> a embedded developer I don't see any problem in defining a subset
> for embedded systems because C++ is very extense.
There are good arguments against subsetting; it tends to weaken the
> Obviously, it would be better to count with C++ comittee.
> I didn't want to start a war regarding EC++, so I maybe I should
> start talking about "embedded" instead.
-- Dave Abrahams Boost Consulting www.boost-consulting.com
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk